Copyright: ©2006 Iskandar and Erdelen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of Amphibian and Reptile Conservation4(1):60-87. the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro- duction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016 (2329KB PDF) The authors are responsible for the facts presented in this article and for the opinions expressed there- in, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organisation. The authors note that important literature which could not be incorporated into the text has been published follow- ing the drafting of this article. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems DJOKO T. ISKANDAR1 * AND WALTER R. ERDELEN2 1School of Life Sciences and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, 10, Jalan Ganesa, Bandung 40132 INDONESIA 2Assistant Director-General for Natural Sciences, UNESCO, 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, FRANCE Abstract.—Indonesia is an archipelagic nation comprising some 17,000 islands of varying sizes and geologi- cal origins, as well as marked differences in composition of their floras and faunas. Indonesia is considered one of the megadiversity centers, both in terms of species numbers as well as endemism. According to the Biodiversity Action Plan for Indonesia, 16% of all amphibian and reptile species occur in Indonesia, a total of over 1,100 species. New research activities, launched in the last few years, indicate that these figures may be significantly higher than generally assumed. Indonesia is suspected to host the worldwide highest numbers of amphibian and reptiles species. Herpetological research in Indonesia, however, has not progressed at a rate comparable to that of neighboring countries. As a result, the ratio of Indonesian species to the entirety of Southeast Asia and Malesian species has “declined” from about 60% in 1930 to about 50% in 2000, essen- tially a result of more taxa having been described from areas outside Indonesia. Many of these taxa were subsequently also found in Indonesia. In the last 70 years, 762 new taxa have been described from the Southeast Asia region of which only 262 were from Indonesia. In general, the herpetofauna of Indonesia is poorly understood compared to the herpetofauna of neighboring countries. This refers not only to the taxo- nomic status, but also to the basic biological and ecological characteristics of most of the species. Moreover, geographic distribution patterns for many species are only poorly known. In view of the alarming rate of for- est loss, measures for more effective protection of the herpetofauna of Indonesia are urgently required. The status of virtually all of the Indonesian species, e.g. in terms of IUCN categories, remains unknown, and no action plans have been formulated to date. In addition, research results on Indonesia’s amphibian and reptile fauna have often not been made available in the country itself. Finally, there is a clear need to organize research activities in such a way that a larger segment of the Indonesian population becomes aware of the importance of the herpetofauna as an essential component of the country’s biodiversity. To address these issues, this paper (1) gives an overview of the herpetofauna as part of Indonesia’s biodiversity, (2) outlines the history of herpetological research in the region, (3) identifies major gaps in our knowledge of the Indonesian herpetofauna, and (4) uses this framework for discussing issues and problems of the conservation of amphib- ians and reptiles in Indonesia. In particular, the contents and shortcomings of compilations of lists of protected or threatened species by national and international authorities are discussed, major threats to the Indonesian herpetofauna or certain components thereof are described, and a set of measures for better long- term conservation is proposed. Abstrak.—Indonesia adalah suatu negara kepulauan yang terdiri dari sekitar 17.000 pulau dengan ukuran bervariasi dan mempunyai asal usul geologi yang kompleks seperti yang terlihat dalam komposisi tumbuhan dan hewannya. Indonesia, sebagai salah satu pusat keanekaragaman yang terbesar di dunia, baik dari segi kekayaan alam jenisnya maupun dari segi tingkat endemisitasnya. Menurut Biodiversity Action Plan for Indonesia, 16% dari amfibi dan reptil dunia terdapat di sini, dengan jumlah lebih dari 1100 jenis. Kegiatan penelitian yang dilaksanakan pada masa yang baru lalu menunjukkan bahwa jumlah tersebut di atas masih jauh di bawah keadaan yang sebenarnya. Indonesia mungkin sekali sebuah negara yang mempunyai jumlah amfibi dan reptil terbesar di dunia. Yang patut menjadi pertimbangan ialah bahwa penelitian amfibi dan rep- til di Indonesia jauh lebih lambat di bandingkan dengan kemajuan di negara tetangga. Sebagai gambaran, jumlah jenis di Indonesia apabila dibandingkan dengan jumlah jenis di seluruh Asia Tenggara dalam kurun waktu 70 tahun telah merosot dari 60% menjadi 50%. Hal ini terjadi karena jumlah taksa baru kebanyakan ditemukan di luar Indonesia. Banyak diantara jenis-jenis tersebut kemudian ditemukan di Indonesia. Dalam 70 tahun terakhir, 762 jenis taksa dipertelakan dari luar Indonesia dan hanya 262 pertelaan dari Indonesia. Correspondence.* 1Tel/fax: ++62-22-250.0258, email: [email protected] 2Tel: +33 (0) 1 45 68 40 78, email: [email protected]; *Corresponding author. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 060 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 Indonesian amphibian and reptile conservation Pada umumnya herpetofauna Indonesia tidak banyak dikenal, baik dari segi taksonomi, ciri-ciri biologi maupun ciri-ciri ekologinya. Daerah penyebaran suatu jenis sangat sedikit diketahui. Meninjau dari cepatnya penebangan dan pengalihan fungsi hutan, usaha untuk melindungi komponen biologi (dalam hal ini amfibi dan reptil) sangat diperlukan. Hampir semua status perlindungan baik secara nasional maupun dengan mengiku- ti kategori IUCN atau CITES tidak banyak diketahui atau dipahami. Kebanyakan informasi mengenai organisme Indonesia sulit diperoleh di dalam negeri. Sebagai akibat, maka diperlukan suatu mekanisme untuk mengatur kegiatan penelitian sedemikian rupa sehingga timbul kesadaran bahwa amfibi dan reptil merupakan salah satu komponen yang sangat berharga dari kekayaan keaneka-ragaman Indonesia. Makalah ini memberikan (1) gambaran komponen biodiversitas herpetofauna Indonesia, (2) memaparkan sejarah perkembangan herpetologi di Indonesia, (3) mengidentifikasi kekosongan dalam pengetahuan herpetologi di Indonesia, (4) memaparkan masalah dan jalan keluar dalam konseravsi keanekaragaman herpetofauna Indonesia. Daftar herpetofauna Indonesia yang dilindungi undang-undang, CITES dan IUCN dibahas, hewan- hewan yang mulai terancam dan kiat untuk melindunginya dibahas. Key words.Conservation, biodiversity, current knowledge, Indonesia, Amphibia, Reptilia, IUCN Citation: Iskandar, D. T. and Erdelen, W. R. 2006. Conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia: issues and problems. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. 4(1):60–87(e16). Introduction either focused on specific taxonomic groups or on parts of the Indonesia, an archipelagic nation with a population of some 210 Indonesian region or neighboring countries (Iskandar 1998, million people, comprises about 17,000 islands of varying sizes 2000). As a consequence, discussed in further detail below, and geological origins, as well as marked differences in com- much of our increasing knowledge of the Indonesian herpeto- position of their floras and faunas. Indonesia is one of the 17 fauna was a result of work performed outside of Indonesia megadiversity countries (Mittermeier and Mittermeier 1997) itself. Only within the last decade new work on the Indonesian with two of the world’s 25 hotspots for conservation priorities, herpetofauna has appeared, e.g., on turtles and crocodiles viz. Sundaland and Wallacea (Mittermeier et al. 1999; Myers et (Iskandar 2000), the snakes of Sumatra (David and Vogel al. 2000), important ecoregions and endemic bird areas. 1996), the snakes of Borneo (Stuebing and Inger 1999), the According to the biodiversity action plan for Indonesia (BAP- snakes of Sulawesi (de Lang and Vogel 2005), the amphibians PENAS 1993), 16% of the world’s amphibian and reptile of Java and Bali (Iskandar 1998), the lizards of Borneo (Das species occur in Indonesia, a total of over 1100 species. 2004), and the amphibians and reptiles of the Sunda region One of the earliest comprehensive descriptions of the (Manthey and Grossmann 1997). Checklists of all amphibian herpetofauna of Indonesia, formerly referred to as Dutch East and snake species of Southeast Asia and New Guinea have India or the Dutch East Indies, is the two volume work by de been compiled (Iskandar and Colijn 2000, 2002); the other Rooij (1915, 1917). The first volume covers the lizards, tur- reptile checklists are still in press. Other publications of tles, and crocodiles; 267 species of lizards, 35 chelonians, and regional relevance include work on Philippine amphibians four species of crocodilians are described. The second volume (Alcala and Brown 1998), on the herpetofauna of Sabah (Inger on snakes lists 84 genera and 318 species. De Rooij’s nomen- and Stuebing 1989; Inger and Tan 1996), and publications clature is based on the catalogues of the British Museum focusing on Borneo (e.g., Inger and Stuebing 1997; ITTO published in several volumes by Boulenger (see Das 1998, for 1998), peninsular Malaysia and Thailand (Chan-Ard et al. references). The region covered in this work is the Indo- 1999; Cox et al. 1998), peninsular Malaysia and Borneo (Lim Australian Archipelago, stretching from Sumatra in the west and Das 1999), and Singapore (Lim and Lim 1992). to New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in the east. The next Das (1998) and recently Iskandar and Colijn (2003), landmark publication on the herpetofauna of the Indo- published a comprehensive bibliography of herpetological Australian Archipelago was the work of van Kampen (1923) publications about Indonesia (excluding the Moluccas and on amphibians. This work was an extension of his earlier New Guinea). These bibliographies clearly illustrate how dif- work—he had published a list of 194 amphibian species for ficult it is to compile the relevant published material for the same region in 1907—which brought the total number of certain taxonomic groups. Moreover, updating of taxonomic amphibian species described to 254 species. In 1950, more and systematic relationships of certain amphibian and reptile than 30 years after de Rooij’s publication (de Rooij 1917), de species groups occurring in Indonesia faces a few other prob- Haas published a checklist of the snakes of the Indo- lems as well. Some of the most crucial points are discussed Australian Archipelago (de Haas 1950). This checklist more in detail below. The fact that new amphibians and rep- contained additions to the snake fauna and also some nomen- tiles are still being described from Indonesia, not only from clatorial changes. De Haas (1950) stressed the imperfect lesser known areas such as Papua (formerly known as Irian knowledge of the geographic distribution of many species, Jaya) and from more remote islands, but also from Java even from Java, where much of the early research had been (examples for amphibians in Iskandar (1998) and a lizard in carried out. This, to some extent, was covered by van Hoesel’s Iskandar (1994)), clearly underscores our fragmentary knowl- work on the snakes of Java (van Hoesel 1959). Later work edge of the herpetofauna of Indonesia. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 061 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 D. T. Iskandar and W. R. Erdelen Figure 1. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040014g001 Figure 2. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040014g002 Figure 3. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040014g003 Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 062 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 Plate 1. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g004 Plate 2. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g005 Plate 3. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g006 Plate 4. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g007 Plate 5. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g008 Plate 6. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g009 Plate 7. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g010 Plate 8. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g011 Plate captions: 1.10 km WNW Malili. 2.Ingerophrynus celebensis. 3.Pelophryne signata. 4.Litoria infrafrenata. 5.Litoria sp.6. Leptolalax hamidi. 7.Leptobachium hasseltii. 8.Limnonectessp. with a black tympanum. Landscape plate 1 & Species plate 7 & 8 taken by Jim A. McGuire. Species plates 2–6 taken by Djoko T. Iskandar. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 063 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 D. T. Iskandar and W. R. Erdelen Table 1. Indonesian reptiles listed in the IUCN Red Lists of threatened animals (Baillie and Groombridge 1996; IUCN 2000), in the CITES Appendices I or II, and protection status in Indonesia. For comparison, threat proposals of the Asian turtle trade workshop (ATT 1999, see van Dijk et al. 2000) are included. IUCN categories of threat: CR = critically endangered, DD = data deficient, EN = endangered, LR = lower risk: near threatened, VU = vulnerable, — = not listed. CL = listed in CITES Appendices (I, II; - = not listed). PI = protection status of species in Indonesia (P = protected; - = not protected). Quota = Quota issued by PKA for skin trade (QS) and live export or pet trade (QL). Note: Quota categories given according to major use category. *) Including Cyclemys oldhami. **) Export stopped since 1994 (see text for details). Note: At least three new species of the chelid genus Elseya, none of them listed here, will be described from New Guinea. ***) The different subspecies of Python curtusare now in the process of being split into three dis- tinct species. Note: Since this table was prepared several new species and subspecies have been described, including Chitra vandjiki and Chitra chitra javanensis(McCord and Pritchard 2002), Varanus böhmei(Jacobs 2003), V. macraei(Böhme and Jacobs 2001), V. reisingeri (Eidenmüller and Wicker 2005), and V. zugorum (Böhme and Ziegler 2005), Pelochelys signifera (Webb 2001), Candoia paulsoniand Candoia superciliosa(Smith et al. 2001) Taxon IUCN ATT IUCN CL PI Quota 1996 1999 2000 Testudines - Turtles and Tortoises Carrettochelyidae Carrettochelys insculpta VU VU VU - P Chelidae Chelodina mccordi VU CR CR - - Chelodina novaeguineae —— LR —— - P Chelodina parkeri —— VU VU - - Chelodina reimanni DD LR LR - - Chelodina siebenrocki —— LR LR - - Elseya branderhorstii —— VU VU - - Elseya novaeguineae —— LR —— - P Emydura subglobosa —— LR —— - - Cheloniidae Caretta caretta EN EN I P Chelonia mydas EN EN I P Eretmochelys imbricata CR CR I P Lepidochelys olivacea EN EN I P Natator depressus VU VU I P Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriacea EN CR I P Bataguridae Batagur baska EN CR CR I P Callagur borneoensis CR CR CR II - QL Cuora amboinensis LR VU VU - - Cyclemys dentata *) —— LR LR - - Heosemys spinosa VU EN EN - - Leucocephalon yuwonoi DD CR CR - - Malayemys subtrijuga —— VU VU - - Notochelys platynota DD VU VU - - Orlitia borneensis LR EN EN - P Siebenrockiella crassicollis —— VU VU - - Testudinidae Indotestudo forstenii VU EN EN II - QL “Indotestudo elongata” VU EN EN II - QL Manouria emys VU EN EN II - QL Trionychidae Amyda cartilaginea VU VU VU - - Chitra chitra CR CR CR - - Pelochelys bibroni VU VU VU - - Pelochelys cantorii VU EN EN - - Crocodylia - Crocodiles Crocodylidae Crocodylus mindorensis CR CR I - Crocodylus novaeguineae —— —— II P QS Continued on page 066. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 064 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 Plate 9. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g012 Plate 10. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g013 Plate 11. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g014 Plate 12. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g015 Plate 13. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g016 Plate 14. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g017 Plate 15. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g018 Plate 16. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g019 Plate captions: 9.Limnonectescf modestus. 10.Limnonectes sp. that laid tadpoles. 11.Limnonectes shompenorum. 12. Limnonectes modestus.13.Limnonectescf. grunniens. 14.Occidozyga lima. 15.Rhacophorus gauni. 16.Nyctixalus pictus. Species plates 9, 10, & 14–16 taken by Jim A. McGuire. Species plates 11–13taken by Djoko T. Iskandar. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 065 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 D. T. Iskandar and W. R. Erdelen Table 1.Continued. Taxon IUCN ATT IUCN CL PI Quota 1996 1999 2000 Crocodylia - Crocodiles Crocodylidae Crocodylus porosus —— —— II P QS Crocodylus raninus —— —— II - Crocodylus siamensis CR CR I P Tomistoma schlegelii DD EN I P Sauria - Lizards Agamidae Chlamydosaurus kingii —— —— - P Hydrosaurus amboinensis —— —— - P Hypsilurus dilophus —— —— - P Lanthanotidae Lanthanotus borneensis —— —— - P Scincidae Tiliqua gigas —— —— - P Varanidae Varanus auffenbergi —— —— II - Varanus beccarii —— —— II - QL Varanus bengalensis nebulosus —— —— I P Varanus caerulivirens —— —— II - Varanus cerambonensis —— —— II - Varanus doreanus —— —— II - QL Varanus dumerilii —— —— II - QLL Varanus indicus —— —— II P Varanus jobiensis —— —— II - QL Varanus komodoensis VU VU I P Varanus melinus —— —— II - Varanus “panoptes” (gouldii) —— —— II P Varanus prasinus —— —— II P Varanus rudicollis —— —— II - QL Varanus salvadorii —— —— II - QL Varanus salvator —— —— II - QS Varanus salvator togianus —— —— II P Varanus timorensis —— —— II P Varanus yuwonoi —— —— II - Serpentes - Snakes Anomochilidae Anomochilus leonardi DD DD - - Boidae Candoia aspera —— —— II - QL Candoia carinata —— —— II - QL Colubridae Iguanognathus werneri VU VU - - Ptyas mucosa —— —— II - (QS)**) Elapidae Naja sputatrix —— —— II - QL Naja sumatrana —— —— II - Ophiophagus hannah —— —— II - QL Pythonidae Apodora papuana —— —— II - QL Leiopython albertisii —— —— II - QL Liasis fuscus —— —— II - QL Liasis mackloti —— —— II - QL Continued on page 068. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 066 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 Plate 17.Nyctixalus margaritifer. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g020 Plate 18. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g021 Plate 20. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g023 Plate 19. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g022 Plate captions: 17.Nyctixalus margaritifer. 18.Rhacophorus edentulus.19.Rhacophorus margaritifer. 20.Staurois guttatus. Species plate 19 taken by Jim A. McGuire. Species plates 17 & 20 taken by Djoko T. Iskandar. Species plate 18 taken by Graeme Gillespie. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 067 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 D. T. Iskandar and W. R. Erdelen Table 1.Continued. Taxon IUCN ATT IUCN CL PI Quota 1996 1999 2000 Serpentes - Snakes Pythonidae Morelia amethistina —— —— II - Q Morelia boeleni —— —— II - QL Morelia clastolepis —— —— II Morelia nauta —— —— II Morelia spilota variegata —— —— II - QL Morelia tracyae —— —— II Morelia viridis —— —— II P Python curtus***) —— —— II - QS Python molurus bivittatus LR LR II P Python reticulatus —— —— II - QS Python timoriensis —— —— II P DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016t001 Concern about conservation of Indonesian species is lists of protected or threatened species by national and inter- quite a recent phenomenon. An exception may be early focus national authorities are discussed, major threats to the on the Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), the first Indonesian herpetofauna or certain components thereof are Indonesian reptile species for which protection and population described, and a set of measures for better long-term conser- management were considered vital for its survival (e.g., vation is proposed. Hoogerwerf 1953). Conservation activities have always been biased toward better known and more showy bird and mam- Knowledge of amphibians and reptiles of Indonesia: mal species. Amphibians and reptiles have largely been a historical perspective ignored. This changed only recently, after it was noticed that some reptile species, particularly from Indonesia, were heavi- As already indicated above, with the publications of de Rooij ly exploited for their skins and other products such as meat, (1915, 1917) and van Kampen (1923), for the first time, over- gall bladders, etc., and when evidence for a worldwide and views of the herpetofauna of the Indo-Australian Archipelago poorly understood decline of amphibian species became avail- were available. Therefore, our analysis starts with the year 1930 able. To the general public in Indonesia, however, amphibians (Fig. 1-3). During the last 70 years, the number of Malesian and reptiles are not considered groups that are in specific need (Insular Southeast Asia and New Guinea) reptile species, of protection. As a result of the bias of conservation-related described principally from outside Indonesia, increased from research in Indonesia, again toward larger mammal and par- 942 to 1238 species. During the same period comparatively few ticular bird species, our data on the herpetofauna of Indonesia taxa were described from Indonesia. This discrepancy in species are still poor. This applies despite the fact that Indonesia har- described is even more evident in the amphibians; whereas the bors the second-most, if not the most diverse herpetofauna Malesian and the whole Southeast Asian taxa show a marked worldwide. Our ignorance is not only limited to amphibians increase, especially after 1955, the Indonesian “increment” in and reptiles. In the Agenda 21-Indonesia, it is estimated that taxa is only between one-half and one-third of the Malesian and 30% of the plant species and 90% of the animal species of of the whole Southeast Asian figures (Fig. 1-3). Indonesia have not been adequately described and scientifi- Comparatively little new information was added during cally documented (State Ministry for Environment 1997). World War II and during the periods of major political unrest Trained herpetologists are virtually non-existent in Indonesia, in Indonesia, i.e., between 1940 and 1960 (Fig. 1-3: data and conservation and management activities only occasional- points at the mid-intervals of 1945 and 1955). The decade ly extend to amphibian and reptile species. More recent work 1960 to 1970 is characterized by the description of many new on the ecology of certain islands or island groups within the taxa from the Malesian region. Most of these taxa had been Indonesian archipelago (e.g., Monk et al. 1997; Whitten et al. described from studies that were not carried out in Indonesia 1996) and work on amphibians and reptiles in trade (Erdelen but in neighboring countries (especially from Malaysia, 1998a; Erdelen 1998b), however, indicate that amphibians Philippines, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands). and reptiles are gaining momentum as groups that need to be This indirectly contributed to the increase in our knowledge of considered important components of Indonesia’s biodiversity. the Indonesian herpetofauna after many of these new forms This paper (1) gives an overview of the herpetofauna as were also found in Indonesia. part of Indonesia’s biodiversity, (2) outlines the history of her- A closer look shows that not only new species of moni- petological research in the region, (3) identifies major gaps in tor lizards (Böhme et al. 2002; Böhme and Jacobs; 2001; our knowledge of the Indonesian herpetofauna, and (4) uses Böhme and Ziegler 1997, 2005; Harvey and Barker 1998; this framework for discussing issues and problems of the con- Jacobs, 2003; Philipp et al. 1999; Sprackland 1999; Ziegler et servation of amphibians and reptiles in Indonesia. In al. 1999) but also new species of land and freshwater tortois- particular, the contents and shortcomings of compilations of es (McCord et al. 1995; McCord and Pritchard, 2002; van Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 068 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16 Plate 21. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g024 Plate 23. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g025 Plate 23. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g026 Plate 24. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g027 Plate 25. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g028 Plate 26. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g029 Plate 27. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g030 Plate 28. DOI: 10.1514/journal.arc.0040016g031 Plate captions: 21.Sylvirana picturata. 22.Hydrophylax chalconota. 23.Odorrana hosii. 24.Hydrophylax nicobariensis. 25.Sylvirana celebensis. 26.Kaloula baleata. 27.Kaloula pulchra.28.Microhyla achatina. Species plate 21 taken by Djoko T. Iskandar. Species plates 22–28 taken by Jim A. McGuire. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://www.herpetofauna.org 069 December 2006 | Volume 4 | Number 1 | e16